One day before the U.S. raid on Iran, 12 Polymarket accounts placed precise bets—Is "Trump insider trading" happening again?

``` On the eve of the U.S. airstrike against Iran, a batch of abnormal bets appeared on the prediction market Polymarket, prompting heightened market vigilance about potential leaks of government insider information. According to analysis by the Financial Times, 12 suspicious accounts concentrated their bets in the days leading up to the airstrike, wagering a total of about $67,000 and ultimately profiting $330,000. About half of the bets occurred within six hours before the airstrike, with the timing so precise it has drawn intense scrutiny. The incident has quickly sparked calls for legislation from U.S. lawmakers and prompted regulators to make public statements. On Wednesday, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a statement declaring its "full enforcement authority" over "illegal trading activity" on prediction markets, including the misuse of confidential information, fraud, and market manipulation. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said on Sunday that allowing bets on military actions is "utterly absurd" and announced he would "submit legislation to ban it as soon as possible." **12 accounts, perfectly timed, earned $330,000** The Financial Times identified the suspicious accounts through two steps. First, it compared the bets to other recent political prediction markets and identified unusually large wagers. Second, it filtered these large bets to focus on accounts that only targeted Iran-related markets, did not close out positions early, and had perfect win rates. Among the 13 wallets ultimately flagged, 12 were newly opened just days before the airstrike, and their bets mostly concentrated in the 24 hours prior, directly wagering that "an attack would occur within a day." Matt Saincome, CEO of financial data provider Unusual Whales, stated: "If a new wallet makes a huge bet on a single event, you have to question the motivation. We have seen errors in judgment... but one can't help but wonder if this might be an insider." **Not an isolated pattern: Maduro and Israel cases emerge** During the U.S. detention of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro at the start of January, six accounts were opened between December 30 and January 2, showed no further activity, only bet on Venezuela-related topics, and turned a principal of $9,807 into $133,900 in profit. Another slightly earlier account bet $32,000 in the Maduro market and earned $404,200. Before the operation to detain Maduro began, the implied chance of his stepping down remained at a low 9%. In the Israel case, the Financial Times previously identified eight accounts that placed abnormally large, contrarian bets on imminent Israel Defense Forces action, earning a total of $405,000. However, the report also noted that not all abnormal bets come from insiders. Earlier this month, multiple traders claimed to have found an "insider player" betting on a U.S. strike against Iran before February 9, but that wallet entered at just 2.5% odds and ultimately lost nearly $100,000. **The paradox of anonymity and blockchain transparency** The operational mechanism of Polymarket is at the heart of the controversy. The platform does not require real-name registration in most jurisdictions, and all transactions are settled in cryptocurrency, giving users a high degree of anonymity in practice. However, on the other hand, all transactions and payouts on Polymarket are processed through the blockchain, meaning every trade can be traced to a single anonymous wallet and is openly visible to regulators and other users. This transparency makes many users keen to track potential insiders. The Financial Times also found another suspicious signal: In a previous Polymarket market about "whether the U.S. would strike Iran before an early February date," the implied probability kept falling as the deadline neared. But about 20 hours before the airstrike, the implied probability spiked abnormally. **Regulatory gray area and legal boundaries under debate** In the U.S., prediction markets are considered financial derivatives and are regulated by the CFTC. Because one traditional function of futures markets is to hedge commercial risk, the CFTC typically allows "informed trading." But Peter Malyshev, a partner at the law firm Sidley, pointed out that "trading using information inappropriately obtained from others" is legally a violation. He also said that if government employees use information obtained in the course of duty for betting, that also constitutes trading on "material non-public information." The high secrecy of military actions makes the issue especially thorny. Compared to most political information, leaks of military intelligence would directly undermine the element of surprise and have far more severe consequences. With prediction markets growing larger, how to draw boundaries between market openness and national security has become a core issue regulators can no longer avoid. Risk Warning and Disclaimer The market carries risks and investment must be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account individual users’ specific investment objectives, financial situations, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article suit their circumstances. Investment decisions are at your own risk. ```